Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Under Land Grabbing Act and Clarifies Scope of 'Land Grabbing'

A bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Sudhanshu Dhulia heard an appeal by V. S. R. Mohan Rao challenging proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, and an order directing his eviction on the ground that he had “grabbed” a portion of land belonging to the applicant. The appeal arose from findings by a Special Court and the appellate forum that the appellant occupied land shown in survey No. 9 though his sale deed described survey No. 10, and that a Commission report identified the possession as falling within the applicant’s title.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the scheme and application of the Land Grabbing Act as encompassing both forcible and unauthorised non‑violent dispossessions where there existed an intention to illegally take possession or create third‑party rights. The Court observed that when an applicant prima facie established title, the onus shifted to the alleged land grabber to rebut the presumption and lead evidence; the appellant had failed to do so. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “… Thus understood, the ingredients of the expression ‘land grabbing’ would comprise (i) the factum of an activity of taking possession of any land forcibly, violently, unscrupulously, unfairly or greedily without any lawful entitlement, and (ii) the mens rea/intention – ‘with the intention of with a view to’ (a) illegally taking possession of such lands or (b) enter into or create illegal tenancies, lease and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, and (c) to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or (d) to give such lands to any person on (i) rental, or (ii) lease and licence basis for construction, or (iii) use and occupation of unauthorised structures.” The Court also reiterated that the Act’s courts “are nonetheless civil courts which follow the Code of Civil Procedure and are competent to grant the same reliefs which can be obtained from ordinary civil courts.”

Background: The dispute concerned 252 square yards alleged to be part of a 555 square yard holding in survey No. 9 at Saroornagar Village. The applicant traced title to a registered sale deed dated 01.01.1965; the appellant relied on a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997 and claimed continuous possession and a double‑storied building, asserting adverse possession or, at worst, simple trespass. Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the Land Grabbing Act should not apply to mere trespass and that criminality or clear mens rea was required. Counsel relied on Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002) 3 SCC 258 to stress narrow application where requisite intention was absent.

Respondents relied on a Commission report by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and rulings of the Special Court which identified the occupied property as lying in survey No. 9; the sale deed produced by the appellant scheduled property in survey No. 10. Two injunction suits filed by the appellant — one against the applicant and another against the Municipality — did not secure relief (one dismissed, the other withdrawn). The Special Court found that the applicant had prima facie established ownership under Section 10 of the Act, shifting onus to the appellant to rebut the presumption; the appellant did not discharge that burden. The Court applied the precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji and held that the Act covered both the narrow and broad senses of “grabbing,” where the requisite intention to illegally take possession, create illegal tenancies or construct unauthorised structures was pleaded and proved. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the appeal; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 708 (CA @SLP(C) No.12570/2025) Case Title: V. S. R. Mohan Rao v. K. S. R. Murthy & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Madhvi Diwan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri P. V. Yogeswaran, Advocate